↓ Skip to main content

The Neo-Bioscore Update for Staging Breast Cancer Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Incorporation of Prognostic Biologic Factors Into Staging After Treatment

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Oncology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
33 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Neo-Bioscore Update for Staging Breast Cancer Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Incorporation of Prognostic Biologic Factors Into Staging After Treatment
Published in
JAMA Oncology, July 2016
DOI 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.6478
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth A. Mittendorf, Jose Vila, Susan L. Tucker, Mariana Chavez-MacGregor, Benjamin D. Smith, W. Fraser Symmans, Aysegul A. Sahin, Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, Kelly K. Hunt

Abstract

We previously described and validated a breast cancer staging system (CPS+EG, clinical-pathologic scoring system incorporating estrogen receptor-negative disease and nuclear grade 3 tumor pathology) for assessing prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy using pretreatment clinical stage, posttreatment pathologic stage, estrogen receptor (ER) status, and grade. Development of the CPS+EG staging system predated routine administration of trastuzumab in patients with ERBB2-positive disease (formerly HER2 or HER2/neu). To validate the CPS+EG staging system using the new definition of ER positivity (≥1%) and to develop an updated staging system (Neo-Bioscore) that incorporates ERBB2 status into the previously developed CPS+EG. Retrospective review of data collected prospectively from January 2005 through December 2012 on patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Prognostic scores were computed using 2 versions of the CPS+EG staging system, one with ER considered positive if it measured 10% or higher, the other with ER considered positive if it measured 1% or higher. Fits of the Cox proportional hazards model for the 2 sets of prognostic scores were compared using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Status of ERBB2 was added to the model, and the likelihood ratio test was used to determine improvement in fit. A total of 2377 patients were included; all were women (median age, 50 years [range, 21-87 years]); ER status was less than 1% in 28.9%, 1% to 9% in 8.3%, and 10% or higher in 62.8%; 591 patients were ERBB2 positive. Median follow-up was 4.2 years (range, 0.5-11.7 years). Five-year disease-specific survival was 89% (95% CI, 87%-90%). Using 1% or higher as the cutoff for ER positivity, 5-year disease-specific survival estimates determined using the CPS+EG stage ranged from 52% to 98%, thereby validating our previous finding that the CPS+EG score facilitates more refined categorization into prognostic subgroups than clinical or final pathologic stage alone. The AIC value for this model was 3333.06, while for a model using 10% or higher as the cutoff for ER positivity, it was 3333.38, indicating that the model fits were nearly identical. The improvement in fit of the model when ERBB2 status was added was highly significant, with 5-year disease-specific survival estimates ranging from 48% to 99% (P < .001). Incorporating ERBB2 into the staging system defined the Neo-Bioscore, which provided improved stratification of patients with respect to prognosis. The Neo-Bioscore improves our previously validated staging system and allows its application in ERBB2-positive patients. We recommend that treatment response and biologic markers be incorporated into the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
Unknown 51 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 19%
Other 8 15%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 11 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 80. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2017.
All research outputs
#534,302
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Oncology
#873
of 3,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,645
of 367,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Oncology
#25
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 84.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,266 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.